🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:19:56 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<grahamcooper7@gmail.com>:

>On Jul 18, 3:09�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:14:39 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
>> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 17, 4:04�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:22:34 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
>> >> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >> >>>>>> On 10/07/2012 1:36 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>>>> The H2 engine gives off WATER VAPOUR for exhaust! �It's clean!
>>
>> >> >LOOK ABOVE!
>>
>> >> Been there; done that; pointed out your error ("It's
>> >> clean!") several times, as did Sylvia. In fact, her
>> >> response, which you apparently fail to understand, is right
>> >> below:
>>
>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>>>> An H2 burning air breathing internal combustion engine gives of oxides
>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>>>> of nitrgoen.
>>
>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> >> So let's look again at everything related to how "clean" an
>> >> H2-burning IC engine is when using air as the oxidizer
>> >> source...
>>
>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>>> And LOTS of them due to the flame temperatures.
>>
>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> not mentioned in Wikipedia.
>>
>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> So? Learn a bit of chemistry; Wiki isn't a comprehensive
>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> source.
>>
>> >> >> >>> >> >> > What is the Toxicity of the Nitrous compounds. �It's a secondary
>> >> >> >>> >> >> > reaction not even worth a mention in the list of hurdles.
>>
>> >> >> >>> >> >> Perhaps it's not, but an engine that emits oxides of nitrogen cannot
>> >> >> >>> >> >> reasobably be called clean, which is what you did.
>> >> >> >>> >> >Ohhh sorrrrry chops.. � here pull my finger!
>> >> >> >>> >> Why, do you want to emit sulfur dioxide? Anyway, nice
>> >> >> >>> >> tapdance around the fact that your claim was refuted.
>> >> >> >>> >What claim? �exactly.
>> >> >> >>> ADD getting you down? It's right there at the top: "The H2
>> >> >> >>> engine gives off WATER VAPOUR for exhaust! �It's clean!"
>> >> >> >>> Although the first sentence is correct (but would also be
>> >> >> >>> correct for any existing IC engine, since one of the exhaust
>> >> >> >>> components resulting from burning hydrocarbons is water,
>> >> >> >>> making it irrelevant), the second is not, since NOx isn't
>> >> >> >>> "clean" by anyone's definition.
>> >> >> >>> >Your claim is not even listed in Wikipedia as a hurdle.
>> >> >> >>> Missed that part about Wiki not being a comprehensive
>> >> >> >>> source, did you? ADD again? Or did you actually mean
>> >> >> >>> "relatively clean" and just got carried away by the wonder
>> >> >> >>> of it all?
>>
>> >> >> >>How do you get Nitrates from H2 and O2?
>>
>> >> >> >Actually, "oxides of nitrogen". From Sylvia's comment at the
>> >> >> >top of this post:
>>
>> >> >> >"An H2 burning air breathing internal combustion engine
>> >> >> >gives of oxides of nitrogen." (Well, "nitrgoen", but we all
>> >> >> >get our fnigers out of sync occasionally.)
>>
>> >> >> >Nitrogen makes up 80% of air, and the flame temperatures
>> >> >> >associated with burning H2 in air guarantee that NOx will
>> >> >> >form.
>>
>> >> >> >Any more attempts to evade the issue that air-breathing H2
>> >> >> >engines are *not* clean?
>>
>> >> >> [Crickets...]
>>
>> >> >> Run away! Run away!
>> >> >you constantly rearrange facts and drivel non existent arguments.
>>
>> >> What facts? And what "rearrangement"? Your claim is that
>> >> H2-burning IC engines are "clean". They're not, unless
>> >> combustion takes place in pure O2.
>>
>> >> >H2 is not only EFFICIENT AND CHEAP! �It's FREE!
>>
>> >> Really? "FREE!"? No cost at all, for production, storage or
>> >> distribution? Do you know anything about the issues involved
>> >> with the storage of hydrogen?
>>
>> >> >Imagine if a solar panel (a sheet of silicon - like putting cardboard
>> >> >in perspex)
>>
>> >> There's a bit more to it than that ("cardboard"?), but I
>> >> wouldn't expect you to know anything about the cost of
>> >> producing high-purity silicon or of using it to build
>> >> photovoltaic panels.
>>
>> >> >was $5/square meter?
>>
>> >> Imagine if a bullfrog had wings so he wouldn't bump his ass
>> >> when he jumps.
>>
>> >> >The Petrol Engine is only getting 30% of the chemical energy from
>> >> >fuel.
>>
>> >> >The H2 comes from RAINWATER !!!
>> >> >Electrolysis is powered by the SUN !!!
>>
>> >> >You don't need H2 production at night! �That's the point! �It's stored
>> >> >SOLAR ENERGY.
>>
>> >> Irrelevant; the issue is whether H2-burning IC engines are
>> >> inherently clean, even if using air for the oxidizer source.
>> >> They're not.
>>
>> >> >O2 (if it's even needed)
>>
>> >> It is if you want your H2-burning IC engine to be clean.
>>
>> >> > comes from the OTHER ELECTRODE
>> >> >produced at the same ratio that it's used for power generation.
>>
>> >> That's quite a dream world you inhabit: Solar panels are
>> >> "FREE!", the infrastructure required to convert their output
>> >> to a usable form for distribution is "FREE!", the storage
>> >> facilities and equipment to store the gases are "FREE!"...
>>
>> >> In fact, everything about converting from fossil fuels to
>> >> hydrogen is apparently, in your imagination, "FREE!".
>> >OK I admit it, you were wrong I was right.
>>
>> Take your meds, and stop trying to do whatever it is that
>> you call "thinking"; the results are unfortunate.
>>
>> >Try finding something that contravenes what I wrote next time!
>>
>> Everything I posted contradicts what you wrote, and anyone
>> can read the above exchange to see that it does. Apparently
>> comprehension isn't your strong suit.

>BOBC - "Dirty H2 engines are dirty!"

As I said, the results are unfortunate, and comprehension
isn't your strong suit.

>Thanks for the tip bro!

Don't bother; you'll just forget it by tomorrow and come up
with some equally inane claim.
-- 

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
                          - McNameless